Are You Ready For Another Mirror's Edge Game? DICE Thinks So...

Mirror’s Edge — I can’t think of many games I loved and hated in such equal measure. It had incredible highs and some bloody frustrating lows, but DICE has heard calls for a sequel and thinks that “people are ready” for Mirror’s Edge 2.

“I think it’s something that people are ready to get into again,” claimed DICE producer Patrick Liu.

“We see that there’s a huge fan following, it’s almost like a cult! And we know what strengths we had, and what weaknesses we had in that game. If we were to release a new game, we’d know what to improve and how to reach a broader audience. So I definitely think there’s a market there.”

There’s no clear indication that the game is even in development, or pre-production for that matter, but it’s encouraging to hear DICE talk about the original so fondly. Despite the game’s issues, it was one of the most forward looking games of this generation. Personally, I’d love to see a sequel.

To me, these days when a developer mentions a title is "more accesible" "is designed for a broader audience" or "ACTION" it tends to mean the game has been "dumbed down" or at the very least, the core of what made the original game popular was removed in an attempt to make more money.

What's concerning is that these companies are alienating their original fans by producing something that isn't a true sequel, turns it into something that feels like something else entirely.
A perfect example would be Dragon Age 2. Th original hit a very specific (and substantially large) and neglected market and they made a truckload of money off it. By making a game that catered for a MARKET, a demographic or a specific type of gamer. With DA2 they went for the "Action+Accessibility+Broader Audience" approach and lost alot of their original fans in the process, because instead of making a game for the market they had, attempting to improve it and drawn new customers into THAT fold, they instead changed the fundamentals of what made DA:O what it was and Bioware has spent money and time trying to "fix the game" since it's release while still trying to appeal to more markets than that type of game should.

We have Genre's for a reason, not every game should be geared towards everyone. It's a basic principle of business...KNOW YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE and cater a product towards them.

Love how people express their opinions about what they like/dislike in a video game and for no reason, someone feels the need to be a smartass and attempt to invalidate someone else's opinion with a subtle "my opinion is right idiot" remark.

I only just realised that people hated the cut-scenes. I liked them. I thought everyone hated the lack of content - I finished it in 2 and 47 minutes. Ridiculously short and way over priced at full retail. It should have been under $20 AUD (I paid $2 on sale by the way, so I wasn't expecting much).

Play the time trials! Super-addictive trying to find the shortest way through the obstacle course. Then once you think you've worked it out, watch the top ranked ghosts and realise that you're crap, and spend ages all over again trying to pull off the crazy moves they did.

The full level time trials were punishing, but damn it felt good when you achieved it. I generally went pretty well with most of them, except for two levels which I replayed again, and again, and again, (... and again x 20) before I finally reached the goal time. What an achievement, though! I've never felt more satisfied at achieving something of no consequence whatsoever, except maybe the admiration of my peers.

I didn't even know about that! The thing amazed me though was not the final times, which I knew I was never really competing with, but rather the routes that they took. And after you watch it a few times, you realise that "hey, I can pull that off"... 50 tries later you have it down pat and blitz the par scores (even if you're not figuring on the overall boards).

"And we know what strengths we had, and what weaknesses we had in that game."

So they realise now that, while revolutionary and cool and whatnot, that first-person platforming is not a viable play style? Unless of course they invent virtual reality content that gives me a sense of kinesthesia, because otherwise it just doesn't work properly.

Is all this complaining about first person platforming because you bought it on a console? Because I have it on PC and I loved it for its first person platforming. It was probably one of the most immersive games I've ever owned. I actually leaned forward when I was making a jump which I thought wouldn't make it, as well as leaning left and right when I turned.

I had it on console(PS3) and loved the first person view. I don't look at my feet when I make a running jump, so look forward and use object markers(like a vent shaft or another building) to judge distance. Did the same thing in mirrors edge. Third personing the game would loose all of the charm.

Of course, I'm one of those weirdos who thinks the biggest downer in the first game was the inclusion of guns, so I'm probably in need of meds.

Nah the guns were the best part of the first game, they were everywhere and you could pick one up whenever there was a challenging area. The most fun I had in the game was when I realised that I could pick up that rifle and kill everyone but I'm not GOING to!

There's a reason it sucks, and it's because 'first person' projection is not anywhere near what we actually would see in a real first person perspective. Effectively you're trapped in a fridge box, and there's a panel cut out at your eye level that you can see through. Good write up on the problem here:http://designreboot.blogspot.com/2009/03/refrigerator-box.html

They put a lot of effort into actually making it feel like you were in Faith's body. Lots of subtle little things like bringing the cityscape into focus after having something blocking your vision (so giving you a second to have your eyes adjust), slight movement of the camera that matched the swaying that people have when they're running and the scrambling of limbs.

In terms of trying to really make it seem like a first person perspective, Mirror's Edge is actually one of the better games out there. Most games it does feel like you're in a refrigerator box (I like to think of it as being a floating head), but I don't think that was necessarily a problem here.

Yes, it wasn't perfect, but it was a damned sight better than most games in that regard.

The problems with the game did not come from it being a first person platformer. The problems were a result of awkward combat sections, some level design that ran counter to the main mechanic of the game (which was all about maintaining momentum) and the cutscenes being such a drastic visual change from the main game engine.

Why did so many people have so much trouble with something as simple as figuring out where their feet were in relation to their goddamn bodies from a first person view?

Do you not know how to walk in real life? Are you constantly stumbling off gutters because you haven't gotten used to where ground is once it moves out of your peripheral? Do you take a tentative step, or stare at the floor, every time you go down stairs?

Take out the gunplay. All of it. Enhance the hand to hand somehow, make it more fluid and complex. The gunplay defeated the purpose of the game. It doesn't need it. Hell, have throwing bolas or something to tie them up but dont make the hero a killer :\ even a taser would be ok.

Agreed. Murder doesn't fit at all with what this game was about. I don't have a problem mowing down people in other shooters, but the gunplay was completely at odds with the rest of the game. Hand to hand combat would be welcome if they could pull it off.

ive seen some of the very very very early footage before they even had any textures and they implemented handguns that you could use as you were running and climbing etc was really quick and fast and worked well. it was the way they implemented weapons that didnt work. by making you have to slow down they ruined it. if like the early footage you could keep moving etc it would work. maybe something like throwing knives would work.

It makes logical sense to include limited access to guns. Your opponents use them, after all, and you are taking them down. If you were in the same situation, wouldn't you sneak in the use of a "borrowed" gun?

It's up to you how you play it. If you don't like guns, then don't use them. They shouldn't be taken away from the game, because that's taking away choice from the game.

Sure, you have a "choice" not to use them, but certain sections of the game are incredibly difficult if you don't. I didn't want to use them (Faith & co think they're the "good guys", so obviously they wouldn't shoot people) and quit the game in frustration because I couldn't get past a point in it without using guns (every guide said the same thing- "shoot these guards and move on").

Fair enough. It's a good point. Dice should have catered to a parkour/hand-to-hand solution a little more in some levels.

They still shouldn't cut out guns completely. Removing that choice would break the realism of the situation. Cue frustrated gamer shouts of "Bloody hell. There's a gun there! Why can't she pick it up and use it?! What a stupid game."

I don't think it was the guns that made a difference. I played through it twice, the first time to get the Keeping the Faith achievement and the second time some years later for a review.

Without the guns, there are forced hand to hand combat sections (or at the least sections where only really experienced/lucky players can get by without resorting to combat of any sort) which downright sucked. Basically, there were sections that felt designed for shooting your way through, even if it was possible to do it without the guns.

It wasn't the guns that were the problem, it was the combat in general. Running away should have been a more viable option, with clearer escape routes. After all, Faith is a runner. When it comes to fight or flight, her choice should be obvious.

Please please please please release a sequel DICE! I played the first one so freaken' many times and I'm not quite sure what people are talking about when they talk about glitches or clumsy controls cause I noticed barely any glitches and the game just flowed so well for me.

It's actually the first time I'd say being in first person really helped immerse me in a game. Just... It was so different and even if there were faults it worked so well. After playing it completely through over 15 times (not counting speed runs and DLC) I think it's perfectly fair to say it was a pretty polished game. At least that's what I saw/felt/experienced.

Obviously expanded close combat would be fantastic. I don't agree with the removal of guns thing though, you could get through a lot of the game without killing anyone if you really wanted. Some bits were hard though and after a lot of attempts to get through using speed and agility alone it really is satisfying to knee a Heavy in the face and mow down his comrades, before disappearing over the rooftops/into the ducts/into the sewers/wherever else.

Oh and you HAVE to bring back Solar Fields for the soundtrack or someone equally as amazing. That soundtrack was SO AMAZING and just complemented the action PERFECTLY.

Hell yes, i'd like to see a step up in the same way Portal 2 had done on the first one.
I loved the way they animated the cut scenes, if you're going to cut out any flow then might as well make it look good.
Just thinking about all those scenes i had to re-do over and over again, ARGH. Running away from men with guns. gotta play it again soon if i can put down elder scrolls.

The world was a bit too empty for me. I think I'd like to run through crowds, talk to more contacts in person and have more varied missions. I loved the first person perspective, though, and the adrenaline rush you got when you ran across the roof tops.

Y'know, that would be an excellent addition to the game. Weaving in and out of moving people, crowds, the dynamic of managing crowd movement especially if they're fleeing because of armed guards shooting behind you. It's sort of Assassin's Creed in a way, but if a running/fleeing crowd was done well, it could be a winner.

Gotta agree this'd be some great ways to expand the game concept. I can imagine ducking and weaving through a crowd trying not to get tripped up and run into someone. Or even after a long section of parkour action open up into a big plaza full of people and have to go from flat out running to blending into a thick crowd to get away or something like that.

You know - there are loads and loads of absolutely gorgeous but completely empty video game worlds out there, and ME is the epitome.

I was hyped up and rolled up over in the build up to ME, but found the game: had really bad dialogue (made me cringe the whole way through the game), the world was empty of people, the cut scenes were not bad but suffered from the dialogue, the story was weak, pointlessly frustrating - why on earth would there be whole armies and helicoptors on the roofs and keeping pace? belief not suspended.

as an adventure/tactics game with the OCCASIONAL bad guy to disarm and beat up it would be much improved.

And we know what strengths we had, and what weaknesses we had in that game. If we were to release a new game, we’d know what to improve and how to reach a broader audience.

That's how you cure Assassin's Creed syndrome. But it only works if they worked out exactly what was and was not working. Only time will tell, but I can guarantee that I will buy this game if it does come out.